florida international university g51 budget and faculty funding model april 28, 2006

Florida International University

G51

BUDGET AND FACULTY FUNDING MODELApril 28, 2006

■ FY 06/07 Budget Overview

■ Determining a New Budget Model

■ Understanding the Faculty Funding Model and Implementation

AGENDA

FY 06/07 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS

FTE – Incremental State Funding

FTE - Incremental Tuition Revenue

FTE BUDGET DISTRIBUTION BY LEVELLowerUpperGrad IGrad IILaw

RESIDENT/NON RESIDENT MIX

TUITION INCREASEUNDERGRADUATEGRADUATE

STATE FUNDING %

ModerateModerate

924

698

8673115732814515312

93% / 7%

2%5%

50%

$9.8 M




AGENDA

DETERMINING A NEW BUDGET MODEL

Faculty and SupportFunding

Faculty and SupportFunding

Strategic InitiativesFunding

Strategic InitiativesFunding

Strategic Enrollment Faculty

Use the Delaware Study to benchmark faculty need by discipline

Establish a long term plan for funding faculty at 75% and 50%

Use the Oklahoma Study to identify amount of funding per faculty position adjusted for Miami cost of living index

TWO ELEMENTS OF THE NEW MODEL

for allocating funds

Initiatives aligned with university strategic direction

Presented in new brief format and discussed at Budget Hearings

Focused on faculty only for special cases considered investments

Research faculty/start up

New programs/accreditation

Enrollment growth

Open to all University Units

Serve as the basis for future funding - mid year allocations and LBR


PRIORITIZATION MATRIX

FACULTY FUNDING ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY

Drives Enrollment

Not Strategic to FIU or BOG

Directly to BOG only

Ties to FIU Only or FIU and BOG

Aligns to Strategic Imperatives

Low Student/Faculty Ratio regardless of cost

High to Moderate Student/Faculty Ratio at

higher cost

High to Moderate Student/Faculty Ratio and

cost-effective


STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES





Based on FIU Strategic Framework

Enrollment Growth and PhD production Health International Environment Critical & Emerging Technology

Derived from BOG Strategic Plan

Critical Needs Emerging Technologies

Economic Development Educated Workforce


Drives Enrollment



higher cost


cost-effective

Enrollment Contribution Methodology

Based on number of FTE’s generated per faculty

Used Delaware benchmark to place each discipline into a level of FTE student to FTE faculty

– Moderate and High = between 16:1 to 25:1 and greater than 25:1

– Low = less than 16:1

Cost Effective Calculation

Based on faculty salaries per FTE and net material costs – what are net material

Used Delaware benchmark to place each discipline into a level of cost-effectiveness per student

– Cost-effective = less than $7.000

– Higher cost = over $7,000 (two thirds) Cost is not considered for Low Student/Faculty Ratio


PRIORITIZATION MATRIX

FACULTY FUNDING ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY

Drives Enrollment






ASSESS IF CORE TO DISCIPLINE OR

CURRICULUM FOR REALLOCATION OPPORTUNITY

FOURTH FUNDING PRIORITY


higher cost

SIXTH FUNDING PRIORITY

SIXTH FUNDING PRIORITY THIRD FUNDING PRIORITY

FIRST FUNDING PRIORITY


cost-effective FIFTH FUNDING PRIORITY

SECOND FUNDING PRIORITY




AGENDA

DELAWARE STUDY PARTICIPANTS

National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (Delaware Study)

Arizona State University

Temple University

University of Central Florida

University of Delaware

University of Florida

University of Houston

University of South Florida

Wayne State University

INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Research I & II

Doctoral I & II

Comprehensive (Master’s) I & II

Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) I & II

Engineering

DefinitionClassification

• Award >= 50 doctoral degrees annually•Receive >= $40M in federal support

• Award >=10 doctoral degrees in >= 3 disciplines or

•Award >=20 doctoral degrees in >=1 discipline

• Award >= 20 masters degrees in >= 1 discipline•Receive >= $40M in federal support

• Award baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts field

•Award at least a bachelor’s degree in programs limited to technical fields

FACULTY CLASSIFICATIONS

Delaware Study categorizes Faculty into 3 types:

Regular/Other Regular Faculty Recurring contractual relationship. Assume continuing appointment. Regular: Tenured/Tenure-Eligible (Professor, Associate, Assistant Professors) Other Regular: Non-Tenure Track (Instructors, Lecturers, Visiting Faculty, etc.)

Supplemental Faculty (Adjuncts)Paid out of “temporary” (OPS) funds.Non-recurring appointment. No expectation of continuing appointment.

Teaching Assistants (Graduate Assistants)Students receiving stipend for teaching.

FIU EXAMPLE: DATA SOURCE TO RATIO BASED ON COURSE CIP CODE

Stud FTEs /Fac FTEs

Ex. 176.8/13.2 = 13.4

CIP: 13.10 Special Education & Teaching

FACULTY CLASSIFICATIONREGULAR FACULTY 720 168 888OTHER REGULAR 177 6 183SUPPLEMENTAL FACULTY 686 293 979TEACHING ASSISTANTS 291 0 291NON-CREDIT BEARING COURSES TOTAL 1874 467 2341CONVERSION FACTOR TO FTE 15 9STUDENT FTES TAUGHT 124.9 51.9 176.8

TOTALUG SCHs

TOTALGRAD SCHs

TOTALSCHs

FACULTY CLASSIFICATIONREGULAR FACULTY 3.4OTHER REGULAR 1.1SUPPLEMENTAL FACULTY 7.1TEACHING ASSISTANTS 0.8NON-CREDIT BEARING COURSES 0.8 TOTAL 13.2

TOTAL INSTRUCTION

FTE

IMPLEMENTATION

FACULTY FUNDING MODEL RESULTS= USES BASED ON DEANS’ REQUESTS

Need Faculty per DS

at 75%

Surpassed DS Target

at 75%

Replacement Deans have ability to hire per hiring guidelines

Place money in a pool to fund below target

positions

Need Faculty per DS

at 75% and within a Priority Level

Surpassed DS Target

at 75% or in a Assess Level

New Position Included in Potential, funded based on Priority

Not funded unless approved per Provost and

meet specific criteria (accreditation)

IMPLEMENTATION

florida international university g51 budget and faculty funding model april 28, 2006

Documents